USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom 52 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • TerryWalstrom
    TerryWalstrom


    509 B.C.E. to 27 B.C.E.

     In the years of Roman Republic, no man was called a god (or even a king). However, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (Emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of Romans of having a dictator. Surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval! An Emperor, surely was a son of a god, or 'divine.'

    The Emperorship, with its divine trappings, was a new trend in the early days of Christianity. Pagan Christian converts brought this ‘divine’ terminology into their new Christian communities and applied these terms onto Jesus. Further, Christians used these terms to promote (“sell”) Jesus to potential pagan converts. Non Pagan congregations (Jewish Christians) had no inclination to absorb Pagan Gentiles, but Paul actually changed Christianity, by letting Pagans switch their allegiances from mythological or human gods to Jesus but continue their practices under a different label. This is easily demonstrated. When the Roman Pantheon was converted into a church, the Pagan idols were replaced by Christian idols; Pagan holidays became Christian, etc.

    The Watchtower (bullshit) ‘scholars’ pretend it was creeping apostasy, after the death of the Apostles, which ‘corrupted’ pure Christian teaching. In fact, historically, there never was a pure Christian orthodoxy. Each congregation; each territory; each geographical instance of ecclesia; reflected local, syncretic, heterogeneous opinions.

    Few Christian denominations today consider the external influences of pagan Roman converts, as being in many ways the driving force behind the development of a high Christology. (Divinity of Jesus) It is an important social—even political context—for understanding Paul’s language of Lord, Savior, Son of God, gospel, etc.

    As Biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman has said: “Readers of the Bible who are not trained in history tend not to think in terms of historical context and so simply read the words of these ancient authors as if they were writing in twenty-first century America.  But these authors were not American, and they were not writing in modern times.  They lived in a different part of the world, in a different culture, with different customs, and different assumptions about the world and life in it.  If you pretend that they were writing in our own context, instead of theirs, you take their words out of context.  And anytime you take a text out of context, you change its meaning.

    If you are curious about 1st Century tendencies toward regarding remarkable men as supernaturally endowed, please consider the following.

    From the beginning his mother knew that he would be no ordinary person.  Prior to his birth, a heavenly figure appeared to her, announcing that her son would not be a mere mortal but would be divine.  This prophecy was confirmed by the miraculous character of his birth, a birth accompanied by supernatural signs.  The boy was already recognized as a spiritual authority in his youth; his discussions with recognized experts showed his superior knowledge of all things religions. As an adult he left home to engage in an itinerant preaching ministry.  He went from village to town with his message of good news, proclaiming that people should forgo their concerns for the material things of this life, such as how they should dress and what they should eat.  They should instead be concerned with their eternal souls.

    He gathered around himself a number of disciples who were amazed by his teaching and his flawless character.  They became convinced that he was no ordinary man, but was the Son of God.  Their faith received striking confirmation in the miraculous things that he did.  He could reportedly predict the future, heal the sick, cast out demons, and raise the dead.  Not everyone proved friendly, however.  At the end of his life, his enemies trumped up charges against him and he was placed on trial before Roman authorities for crimes against the state.

    Even after he departed this realm, however, he did not forsake his devoted followers.  Some claimed that he had ascended bodily into heaven; others said that he had appeared to them, alive, afterward, that they had talked with him and touched him and become convinced that he could not be bound by death.  A number of his followers spread the good news about this man, recounting what they had seen him say and do.  Eventually some of these accounts came to be written down in books that circulated throughout the empire.

    But I doubt that you have ever read them.  In fact, I suspect you have never heard the name of this miracle-working “Son of God.”  The man I have been referring to is the great neo-Pythagorean teacher and pagan holy man of the first century C.E.,Apollonius of Tyana, a worshiper of the Roman gods, whose life and teachings are still available for us in the writings of his later (third-century) follower Philostratus, in his book The Life of Apollonius.

    Apollonius lived at about the time of Jesus.  Even though they never met, the reports about their lives were in many ways similar.  At a later time, Jesus’ followers argued that Jesus was the miracle-working Son of God, and that Apollonius was an impostor, a magician, and a fraud.  Perhaps not surprisingly, Apollonius’s followers made just the opposite claim, asserting that he was the miracle working Son of God, and that Jesus was a fraud.

    What is remarkable is that these were not the only two persons in the Greco-Roman world who were thought to have been supernaturally endowed as teachers and miracle workers.  In fact, from the tantalizing but fragmentary records that have survived we know of numerous other persons also said to have performed miracles, to have calmed the storm and multiplied loaves, to have told the future and healed the sick, to have cast out demons and raised the dead, to have been supernaturally born and taken up into heaven at the end of their life.  Even though Jesus may be the only miracle-working Son of God that we know about in our world, he was one of many talked about in the first century.

    Clearly, then, if we want to study the stories about Jesus – and about his followers – we need to situate them in their own historical context, in the world of the first Christian century.  The stories about Jesus were told among people who could make sense of them, and the sense they made of them related to their own world, which knew of divine beings who were also human.    The environment in which Jesus was born and in which Christianity emerged is known as the Greco-Roman world.

    (Bart Ehrman, ehrmanblog.com)

  • Jonathan Drake
    Jonathan Drake

    There are a few things here that are seeming errors, maybe you can clarify for me. 

    1. As I referenced in another thread and provided secular source supporting, Paul passed on what he received from Judean apostles. He did not allow them to keep their customs and in fact listed the very practices the so called pagan world had and then commended his Ephesian congregation for abandoning those practices. 

    The real origin of the adoption of gentile customs into Christianity was a papal decree by pope Gregory 1st called, Epistola ad Mellitum which reads as follows:

    Gregory I, Letter to Abbot Mellitus, Epsitola 76, PL 77: 1215-1216 

    Intro: Mellitus was about to join St. Augustine of Canterbury on the mission to England. How to deal with a pagan culture, and its symbols. Gregory I (590-604) recommends a policy of acculturation.

    ****

    Tell Augustine that he should be no means destroy the temples of the gods but rather the idols within those temples. Let him, after he has purified them with holy water, place altars and relics of the saints in them. For, if those temples are well built, they should be converted from the worship of demons to the service of the true God. Thus, seeing that their places of worship are not destroyed, the people will banish error from their hearts and come to places familiar and dear to them in acknowledgement and worship of the true God.

    Further, since it has been their custom to slaughter oxen in sacrifice, they should receive some solemnity in exchange. Let them therefore, on the day of the dedication of their churches, or on the feast of the martyrs whose relics are preserved in them, build themselves huts around their one-time temples and celebrate the occasion with religious feasting. They will sacrifice and eat the animals not any more as an offering to the devil, but for the glory of God to whom, as the giver of all things, they will give thanks for having been satiated. Thus, if they are not deprived of all exterior joys, they will more easily taste the interior ones. For surely it is impossible to efface all at once everything from their strong minds, just as, when one wishes to reach the top of a mountain, he must climb by stages and step by step, not by leaps and bounds....

    Mention this to our brother the bishop, that he may dispose of the matter as he sees fit according to the conditions of time and place

    2. Also as I pointed out, the bible and history testifies that Christianity was standardized before Paul's conversion. I also provided the source and scriptures testifying to this fact in the other thread. This source also addressed the fact that the Gentiles had no affect on christisnity. At least not until the pope issued that epistle several hundred years later. My post read as follows, quoting the reference used:

    I can certainly do that, I'll provide a few quotes from the book I'm currently reading. I just read a rather large chapter in which was the subject of the plausibility of hellenization of culture explaining the view of Christ. The full title of the book is, "Lord Jesus Christ | Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity" by Larry W. Hurtado. I'm not done with it yet but I'm enjoying it. 

    Anyway, on beginning on page 230 it states:

    "To Repeat an earlier emphasis: the interpretation of Jesus' death attested in Paul's letters, by all accounts, derive from his "predecessors," including Judean circles such as the Jerusalem church. Moreover, as also previously noted, Paul's acquaintance with Jewish Christian beliefs began in the very first few years (ca 30-35 C.E). The only meaningful period of Christian development "before" Paul is at most the very first few months or perhaps years. But Paul's introduction to Jewish Christian beliefs must even be dated prior to his conversion, for his opposition could have been directed only against a prior Jewish Christian phenomenon.Furthermore, Paul claims that the traditions such as he repeats in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 represent not only his own prior missionary message but also the proclamation of Judean leaders (15:11). Scholars may dispute the validity of Paul's claim, of course. But we must also note that those to whom he attributed these traditions (e.g., Peter/Cephas and James) were still very much active and able to speak for themselves. He was not as much at liberty to make specious attributions and claims about the origins of Christian traditions as we modern scholars!"

    It should be noted that the above quote is taken from a page where he's addressing the treatment of the Q material toward Christs death. However as the quote itself states he elsewhere made this same assertion in addressing the hellenization issue, which I'm still trying to find in the book.... (It's rather large)

    Found it. Okay so he addresses the Hellenists starting on page 206 and there is a great deal of information. Such as the first instance of the above quoted information can be found somewhere here. So what I'm going to do is type out the last paragraph leading up to the summary of the chapter and then some of the summary itself. But remember all the things he asserts up to this point has his references in the footnotes and very detailed reasons for why the assertion is made. What I'm going to put here is a summary, because otherwise I'd be typing all day long. 

    "Whatever one thinks of the idea that the Hellenist believers of Jerusalem had developed a distinctly radical view of Torah and temple, however, for my purposes here the key question is whether they dissented from the sorts of christological categories and devotional practice that came to expression initially among Judean circles of the early Christian movement. The answer: there is no evidence that the Hellenists as a group had a distinctive Christology, or that they collectively rejected the sort of reverential practices studied in this chapter. But, even if one prefers to think of the Hellenists as some sort of proto-Pauline group that was critical of "the ritual law" and the Jerusalem temple, this does not in itself provide any basis for thinking they also developed a significantly different view of Jesus or a distinctive pattern of devotional practice. Within the limits of our evidence (secondhand reports of Acts and traditions in Paul's letters), it appears that the "Hebrews" and the "Hellenists" in Jerusalem made similar christological statements and engaged in similar devotional practices."

    Following this statement is the summary, which is quite lengthy, but on page 215 he says this:

    "The most important points to make here are these, by way of summary: The high place of Jesus in the beliefs and religious practice of Judean Christianity that comes across in this evidence confirms how astonishingly early and quickly an impressive devotion to Jesus appeared. This in turn helps to explain why and how it all seems to have been so conventionalized and uncontroversial already by the time of the Pauline mission to the Gentiles in the 50's. As Bengt Holmberg notes, when Paul visited Jerusalem three years after his conversion (or perhaps about five years after Jesus' execution), "he there encountered a religious group which had reached a fairly high degree of development in doctrinal tradition, teaching, cultic practice, common life and internal organization."

    He then cites his reference in the footnotes. 
    He goes on to further assert in a few lines that Jesus place in Christian worship was very early, and as we can see from their practices developed prior to the Gentile mission of Paul.


  • TerryWalstrom
    TerryWalstrom

    Let's take a look at the process.

    A Pagan is not circumcised. A Jewish Christian is horrified. Peter argues against accepting the Pagan.

    Paul prevails.  Circumcising was the Law to a Jew. The explanation (the mcguffin!) is a 'vision' was sent

    making it 'okay.'  Ha!

    Idolatry consisted of sacrificing food to pagan gods.

    Paul had no problem with eating food sacrificed to false gods!

    Now ask yourself, what was all the fuss about and who won?


  • TerryWalstrom
    TerryWalstrom

    Paul started churches among former pagans in Galatia, probably in several different cities.  The gospel he converted them to was the one we know from this letter and others, such as Romans.   A pagan who wants to be made right with the one true God needs to abandon his/her worship of other gods and believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus for their sins and be baptized.   The person does not, and should not, convert to become Jewish.  Jesus’ salvation extends to both Jews and Gentiles equally, by faith.

    After Paul left the region other missionaries came with a different gospel message.   They insisted that Jesus was the Jewish messiah sent from the Jewish God to the Jewish people in fulfillment of the Jewish law, so that OF COURSE following Jesus meant being Jewish.   Jesus, for these people, was the fulfillment of the covenant promises God had made with the father of the Jews Abraham; the sign of that covenant was circumcision; and when God gave circumcision as the sign to Abraham, he called it an “eternal covenant” – -meaning that it would never change.  To be an heir of the covenant that God had given, and to fulfill the plan that God had set out long ago, a person has to do what God demands of his people.  Males have to be circumcised; males and females have to keep the law.   To follow Jesus a person has to adopt the ways of Judaism.

    These other missionaries insisted that Paul has corrupted the original gospel of Jesus’ disciples in Jerusalem.   The original apostles agree that the law must be followed; Paul is a maverick.

    Paul can be very angry and sarcastic about the prejudices in other congregations' idea of pure worship. For instance, in Galations  5:12, when he is referring to the missionaries advocating another gospel.  (This is more graphically portrayed in the Greek.).   Literally Paul says that “Would that those who are unsettling you would be cut off.”   But what he’s saying is – to give the idiomatic translation, “Would that those who are unsettling you, when they themselves undergo circumcision, the knife slips and they cut off the whole thing.”

    These are examples of a rift or divergence from "settled" true teaching, are they not?


  • TerryWalstrom
    TerryWalstrom

    Justin Martyr wrote, “And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus.”

    The pagans during the 2nd century thought of Perseus’s birth as a virgin birth, and considering the “celestial intercourse” between the mother and the god, similar to Mary and the Holy Spirit, this would make sense. It would make sense that Danae WAS a virgin because her father kept her locked up because he didn’t want her conceiving any male children. In today’s contemporary age, when we read Greek mythology, it’s never emphasized that Danae was a virgin, not in the way Mary’s virginity is emphasized, so it never occurs to readers, “Perseus was born of a virgin,” but that doesn’t mean that the pagans back in the day didn’t emphasize that idea more, and this quote by Martyr gives an indication that Perseus was thought to have been born of a virgin.

    _________________

    The ongoing absorption in Jewish Messianic Christianity of Greco-Roman pagan influence seems a no-brainer. The first Gospel in the canon, Matthew, jumps right in with the pagan-influenced 'virgin birth."

    Was there a battle going on in the New Testament period over orthodoxy? Sure. It wasn't settled, except in the minds of those wishing (and insisting) it were.

  • Jonathan Drake
    Jonathan Drake

    No they are not. 

    Peter never opposed the gentile mission, or any Gentiles. In galations the confrontation with Peter isn't abiut anything he said. Paul resisted him because he was shying away from the Gentiles out of fear for how Jewish Christians would react. But Peter stopped doing this, and his other actions show he welcomed Gentiles and supported Paul's mission. 

    The context of galations 5:12 shows that some had come preaching circumcision, as you say. Paul explained this was to undermine Christ and abolish the cross. That is why he made the expression about the slip of the knife, because these people were blaspheming Jesus sacrifice. 

    As to the eating meat. Paul was very clear. The idol temples had restaurants built onto them where you could get a meal. A Christian could go there and eat a meal, no big deal. But paul warned about a scenario where a Christian seeing this who used to worship in that temple would be "built up" to also eating. The difference was that one ate a meal, the other began to think reverently of the God they once worshipped - in doing so they sinned. The gentile religions did not believe the God was in the idol, they believed the idol represented the God who was elsewhere. Paul was thus making a distinction and explaining how christians should be mindful of each other's consciouses, lest we stumble a fellow into their former idolatrous practice. 

  • Jonathan Drake
    Jonathan Drake

    Yes, the virgin birth is much older than Christ. But that isn't because it was necessarily founded in paganism. The promise regarding the seed in genesis was well known and represented in every culture. These understood it to be a virgin birth, and that is why each culture features a promised seed delivering a messiah or savior through a virgin birth, or something very similar to the effect.

    unfortunately, I don't remember where I read that.

  • TerryWalstrom
    TerryWalstrom

    Jonathan Drake: Peter never opposed the gentile mission, or any Gentiles. In galations the confrontation with Peter isn't abiut anything he said.

    _____________________

    Why then did God have to tell Peter THREE TIMES that it was permitted for him to enter a Gentile home and freely give the gospel to Gentiles? Jews who were still keeping the Law acted as though Gentile homes and Gentile meals were accursed. Conflict came to a head when Peter arrived in Antioch (the first place to use the term, "Christian" we are told.) Paul and Peter were not seeing eye to eye about Christian fellowship. In Antioch, there was epic confrontation between Paul and Peter.

    I understand you don't see fellowship as anything other than a cultural problem rather than a matter of core identification of theology. But, the 'body of Christ' is an indivisible concept, is it not? Fellowship as the 'bride' is a symbol of purity and integrity because it is not tarnished in any manner (even cultural.)

    Orthodoxy is 'right belief.'  If Jesus' bride was divided into two classes (Jewish/Gentile) because of cultic paranoia, there is no 'rightness' to a 'house divided' which cannot stand.

    The first canonical Gospel, Mark, does not have the story of the Virgin birth, and in fact, shows no clue that it is familiar with the stories of the Virgin birth. Mark does not narrate an account of Jesus’ birth.  Mark never says a word about Jesus’ mother being a virgin.  Mark does not presuppose that Jesus had an unusual birth of any kind.   And in Mark (you don’t find this story in Matthew and Luke!!), Jesus’ mother does not seem to know that he is a divinely born son of God.   On the contrary, she thinks he has gone out of his mind.   Mark not only lacks a virgin birth story; it seems to presuppose that they never could have been a virgin birth.  Or Mary would understand who Jesus is.   But she does not.

    What to make of this? Simply, there were differing views of the Christian experience by different writers and believers. Is this a 'big deal" or not?

    All I'm asserting is that the cultural, historic context is important when examining early Christianity. By the time Constantine tries to pull all the Christian ecclesia together, you practically have a series of fistfights, according to Eusebius. Why? How? Where is the basis for solidarity?

    It is a question worth contemplating.

    As to scholar Hurtado, I haven't read his book, but it certainly sounds remarkable! I read a few reviews online.

    http://www.sbts.edu/documents/tschreiner/review_Hurtado.pdf

     "One of the less convincing features of Hurtado’s book is his tendency to accept critical orthodoxy throughout. For instance, he includes his chapter on Q before consulting the Synoptic Gospels. Placing Q before the Synoptics is a rather strange procedure since the nature of Q is keenly debated, and some scholars question whether it even existed. Even if Q did exist, the document (or oral tradition) has never been unearthed, and so we do not know (contrary to the confi dent assertions of some!) what was actually contained in the alleged document. Therefore, it is rather speculative to write about the Christology found in Q to say the least. Perhaps Hurtado’s purpose is to demonstrate the plausibility of his theory even if one adopts a Q hypothesis, since he argues that even Q does not point to variant form of Christian belief regarding Jesus Christ. In any case, reading this chapter on Q reminded me that biblical scholars who complain that those who do systematics are guilty of too much speculation should look carefully in the mirror."





  • Jonathan Drake
    Jonathan Drake

    Yes his book is very good, I enjoyed the part about q but I was more interested in everything else. 

    I think I stated in your other thread that it would make sense for Peter to assume that preaching to all nations and tribes and tongues meant the Jews spread all over the empire. The Jews lived all over. I've always felt Peter likely believed this. However, while he was beckoned to go to Cornelius once he accepted he never questioned again, only his actions showed he needed to be corrected. 

    Your comment about the body of Christ being one and a house devided is true, and if these people were perfect and unaffected by their culture I would agree the gentile dilemma meant something other than it does. However as it stands, they were a people affected by thousands of years of culture that wouldn't be undone just because suddenly it's okay. It would take time to include Gentiles without anyone wondering about it. 

    As far as the Mark account, the writer assumed knowledge of birth, death and resurrection was known. One way this is shown is by how the Jews use the phrase," son of Mary" instead of son of Joseph when referring to Jesus. This was a derogatory reference inferring his illegitimacy. It's a direct call out to the virgin birth story.

    as to the fighting regarding standardization of the church after constsntine, this is because of the warning given by the apostles. As i stated in the other thread, both Peter and Paul left instruction that after their death only oral and written teachings by them be used and remembered. Yet, after they died sects popped up teaching different things, and other books were created. The Christian movement was standardized already before the apostles died. Afterwards, people introduced their own ideas, in the same fashion as those mentioned by Paul in galations. This destandardized Christianity, resulting in varying beliefs which corrupted the original. Then the worship was further corrupted by the pope via my above posted information. 


    Summarizing, the real standard is the first century example. Any and all writings or teachings developed by people who weren't of the first century apostles is literally trash. Yet that trash came to define Christianity by the time of constsntine and was expounded on by the Catholic Church.


  • TerryWalstrom
    TerryWalstrom

    Jonathan Drake: However as it stands, they were a people affected by thousands of years of culture that wouldn't be undone just because suddenly it's okay. It would take time to include Gentiles without anyone wondering about it. 

    _______________________

    Peter had received a direct revelation from God Almighty!

    Even though, he had been inculturated by his tradition in Judaism, Peter had immediately begun living as a Gentile! Paul's fury was directed at the HYPOCRISY of living one way and teaching another. Why?

    The question of Justification was at stake. This is a foundational orthodox teaching. Belief and acceptance either was or was not all a Christian needed for salvation. This was a huge apostasy in fundamentals.


    And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy (2:13).


    Peter's defection had a disastrous effect on the Antioch church. The reason for this is that all of the Jews in the church began to follow his example. Peter was a natural leader. No matter what he did, people would follow him.

      • When Jesus asked His disciples who they thought He really was, it was Peter who acted as their spokesman.

      • When the gift of tongues was given at Pentecost, it was Peter who addressed the crowd that gathered.

      • And when Peter decided to go fishing after the resurrection, the disciples were quick to follow him, even though they had been instructed to remain in Jerusalem.

    Once again we see people following Peter. The entire Jewish-Christian community began to follow his example of separation from the Gentile believers. Even Barnabas was swept up in this separation. The result was a giant split in the church.

    Even worse there was a split over the eating of the Lord's Supper. The one place where unity should have been the most evident had now become the scene of division. Paul calls this action "hypocrisy." They were saying and believing one thing while they were doing another. They were preaching the gospel but they were not living the gospel. They were preaching that faith in Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation, but they were living as though Gentiles were second-class Christians.

    Peter and Barnabas knew better than to act like this. But they had been intimidated. Peter was intimidated by the disciples of James. Barnabas and the other Jewish Christians were intimidated by Peter's defection. By running away from the problem, Peter had created a far greater problem.

    Was this Apostacy on the part of Peter? If so, what could have been worse inasmuch as Peter had been the agent of false Gospel?

    "But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all. . . " (Galatians 2:14).

    Paul rebuked Peter's false teaching which had split the church. The General Truth of Justification: A man is not justified by the works of the law (Galatians 2:16)

    _______________

    What I find interesting is this, Peter was acting the way the Governing Body today does. By making door to door witnessing, obedience to the FDS and the Organization the core of salvation, they've made Jesus' sacrifice null and void.

    _________________________

    Jonathan Drake: Summarizing, the real standard is the first century example. Any and all writings or teachings developed by people who weren't of the first-century apostles is literally trash. 

    ____________________________

    Gulp! We DON'T HAVE any first-century manuscripts at all, Jonathan. We only have corrupt LATER approximations developed by people who weren't of the first-century. So, our discussion is pretty much moot 'trash.'

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit